In my previous Rec
Report, I suggested that political candidates must be seen in terms
of three areas or points: economics, ideology and rhetoric. Economics
refers to the viability of a candidate, his or her funding (not their
economic policies, which is included under ideology). Ideology, as I suggested
in the previous report, refers to commitments. Ideology is not to be seen
merely as the ideas in someone's head, although ideas are some of its
manifestations. Ideology refers to the framing, the constraints, the motivations,
and the complete construction of worldview. Ideology thus impels, constrains
and frames action, while providing the frame of reference for its interpretation.
Rhetoric, of course, involves expression. Rhetoric is the language, the
techniques of persuasion, the message and the way that speakers relate
to audiences. Rhetoric also relates to the other two areas. All three
terms are interconnected and mutually influencing. As such, a political
actor or candidate may be viewed in terms of a triangle, not unlike what
rhetoricians refer to as the rhetorical triangle. The rhetorical triangle
is a representation of the classical rhetorical situation into which every
interlocutor is interpolated upon engaging an audience.

On the right, I show
what I am calling the political triangle, which shows the elements of
political representation and which includes rhetoric as one of its terms.
On the left, I show the classical rhetorical triangle, which demonstrates
the elements of rhetoric, including the speaker and her credibility (ethos),
the message (or logos) and the audience (or pathos). The three terms are
reciprocally related. Change one and the others must change. (The changing
of the speaker and her message for different audiences represents one
the most challenging aspects of political representation.).

The point
of this demonstration is to show that the political speaker must engage
in a rhetorical situation that involves self, audience and message. Each
of the terms must shift to accommodate changes in any other terms. The
rhetorical situation is then imported into the political triangle as one
of its terms (lower left). Similarly, the two other terms on the political
triangle may also be elaborated. Economics or funding is not singular
but involves several parties and types of parties (corporations, individuals,
unions, etc.). The complexities of ideology are legend.

Except in cases of
talking to oneself (and arguably not even then) no speaker is ever the
only audience of her speech act. Likewise, the message or logic of an
argument is not the same as the pathetic appeal or the audience appealed
to. But the terms affect one another.

Similarly, on the
political triangle, the terms cannot be equated or collapsed. A politician's
ideology is seldom if ever identical to his or her rhetoric. Nor does
ideology easily map onto funding. (George W. Bush represents perhaps the
most blatant relationship between funding and policy in historical memory.
However, his allegiance to social conservatism has little to do with funding,
except that some constituents with money share such ideological convictions.)

Despite the claims
of some candidates, the terms of the rhetorical and political triangles
cannot be collapsed into one another. First, the rhetorical element is
complicated in consideration of the various audiences being addressed.
Rhetoric is complicated and rarely maps onto ideology perfectly. In fact,
that some candidates represent such a collapse is itself a rhetorical
maneuver. For example, if X candidate claims that his ideology depends
on and is utterly synonymous with his funding source, that he represents
only one contingent in his audience, then he is employing a particular
rhetoric. That rhetoric may be regarded as populist-if said audience is
"the people." The rhetoric would be blatantly corporatist if
the audience consisted of corporations and the speaker openly avowed a
corporate agenda. The latter rhetorical position is unlikely for reasons
I suggested in the previous Rec Report-the avowed egalitarian ideals of
our democratic Republic are antithetical to such a straightforward corporatist
rhetorical positioning.

As I suggested, one
thus must weigh funding, ideology and rhetoric carefully, considering
how each term is constrained and dependent upon the others. The complications
of the political triangle may explain how a candidate may be a corporate
favorite, while her parliamentary record reflects quite different ideological
commitments. The payoff for corporations may be rhetorical. Similarly,
a worker at a corporation may avow a corporate ideology when speaking
to her boss, while she may be motivated by quite different ideological
convictions. How many workers actually believe that corporations should
be motivated only by profit even if their own livelihood may be reduced
or jeopardized by such an exclusive profit motive? Conversely, what employee
would openly avow a socialist agenda in a corporate setting, and still
hope to keep his or her job?

Any candidate who
suggests that his rhetoric, funding and ideology are one in the same is
simplifying the matter for rhetorical purposes.